Where is it written that the country must improve? Why is that a law? The country can do whatever its people want to do. If they want to improve things, they can do so on an individual basis, or get together voluntarily and do what they like. If they just want to lie back and live off the fruits of the previous generations' labor, they should be able to do that too.
Technically, it isn't written. But there's no real point if it doesn't. A spiral into hedonism and anarchy isn't really conducive to social welfare, but a continuously-improving society increases the quality of life for its citizens.
If you really want to take that to the extreme, it's grossly unfair that it is enshrined in law that I have no legal recourse to purge the cancer from our society (unproductive members), but there is nothing written to give people incentive to be productive. Shouldn't really get to have it both ways.
To the contrary, we need someone being a referee. The problem right now is that the referee is playing the game. To carry the metaphor, say you've got a playoff series where one team is up 3-0 and has blown out the other team all three games, you're saying that the referee should do what he can to make the losing team win. What for? Sometimes what's fair is to have an uncontested beatdown.
It's largely a matter of opinion rather than fact whether the referee is currently too involved or not. Considering that the vast majority of new wealth generated since the housing crash in 2008 has gone into the pockets of very few, and that most people are not demonstrably any better off, then I would say the referee is not paying enough attention.
And to use your sports analogy, let's at least reset the terms right. One team is up 3-0 because they are exploiting the crap out of the rules and the referee either can't enforce fair rules or won't enforce fair rules. I'd rather see the referee enforce the rules so that it goes down to a fight at the end of game 7 for the whole shebang, because one team isn't innately stronger than the other, but just has taken advantage of unfair rules or ignored rules entirely.
What's wrong with cutting corners? So long as they're not actively lying about it, I'm fine with anyone offering a cheaply-made product at a cost the market will bear.
Nothing is wrong with cutting corners so long as they are not actively lying about it. Only government regulation forces people to not actively lie, though, and there is a huge amount of evidence supporting this.
When forced into honesty, business behavior changes because what customers would buy when ignorant or mislead, they tend to be less supportive of when properly informed.
If people desire more value, they'll force the price down or the quality up, or both. If they don't, then the producers deserve their profits, and more people ought to get into the industry to provide competition.
When people are able to be informed consumers, they tend to exhibit this behavior except on commodity items. However, informed consumers are not in unregulated business' best interests, and they tend to lobby hard against attempts to better inform consumers.
But when you have a government trying to forcibly manipulate the industry to best serve the consumer, what you get is corruption on both sides: government officials and the entrenched producers working hand-in-glove to maintain the status quo.
Power corrupts. Money is power, and governmental control is power. There will always be corruption, and there is not a great deal of evidence showing that an unregulated market is less corrupt. It's simply easier for the corrupt to hide it, as there is no force capable of checking their corruption.
Government and business are often at odds, and while they're all corrupt, they've often got different priorities that serves as a set of checks and balances on any one group's corruption. It's not a great system, but until the underlying problem of corruption can be addressed (and I'm not sure it can), it's probably the least evil path we have available.